Mary Canning v. Creighton University, 995 F.3d 603

In July 2015 Dr. Mary Canning (age 57) began an internal medicine residency at Creighton; supervisors raised repeated concerns about her clinical competence.
In December 2015 the Clinical Competency Committee recommended she repeat her intern year and initially declined to renew her contract; Canning agreed and later met with a psychologist who reported concerns about her capacity to learn and possible cognitive or functional causes.
Creighton placed Canning on paid leave pending fitness-for-duty evaluations; neuropsychologist Colleen Connolly and Dr. Ty Callahan cleared her, and Creighton allowed her to return in July 2016 to repeat the year.
After returning she continued to struggle, was placed under review and then probation in December 2016, and shortly thereafter committed a serious patient-safety near miss—discharging a pulmonary embolism patient without the prescribed anticoagulant (a nurse corrected the error before discharge).
The Committee recommended dismissal in January 2017 for the patient-safety incident. Canning sued for age discrimination (ADEA, NFEPA), disability discrimination (ADA, NFEPA), and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for Creighton and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Age discrimination (ADEA/NFEPA)	Canning contends age motivated termination; proffers evidence of supposed policy inconsistency, adequate performance, and disparate treatment to show pretext	Creighton says termination was for an "egregious" patient-safety error (legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason); no evidence that age was but-for cause	Affirmed — plaintiff failed to show pretext or that age was the but-for cause of termination
Disability discrimination (ADA/NFEPA)	Canning argues Creighton regarded her as disabled (citing earlier evaluations/comments)	Creighton notes fitness-for-duty evaluations cleared her before reinstatement and decisionmakers did not view her as disabled at time of termination	Affirmed — Canning did not show Creighton regarded her as disabled when it terminated her
Retaliation (ADA/NFEPA)	Canning claims protected activity (attorney letter, grievance against another resident) caused termination	Creighton points out the letter produced a benefit (reinstatement conditional on fitness-for-duty) and that termination followed an independent serious safety incident while on probation	Affirmed — no causal link; protected activity did not cause termination

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (falsity of employer’s explanation may permit inference of discrimination but does not mandate jury trial in every case)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard and evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Tramp v. Associated Underwriters, Inc., 768 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 2014) (ADEA requires but-for causation; McDonnell Douglas application)
Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (employer’s burden to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
Ridout v. JBS USA, LLC, 716 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir. 2013) (pretext via departure from employer practice)
Ebersole v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., 758 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2014) (similarly situated comparator and causal-link principles)
Battle v. UPS, Inc., 438 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2006) (cognitive function is a major life activity under ADA)
Tusing v. De Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 639 F.3d 507 (8th Cir. 2011) (proof of falsity necessary but not sufficient to show age discrimination)